The Appellant in this is contesting a significant award in a class action case regarding the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Appellants argue that Appellees class action includes plaintiffs who were not injured and also includes an inconsistent calculation of individual damages for each plaintiff.

WHY IS THIS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT?

Class actions are strictly regulated to ensure that the parties before the Court have similar damages and arguments. Since class actions involve substantial monetary damages, it is the Court’s job to ensure that these questions are answered conclusively before the trial begins. The Appellant believes that the lower Court did this incorrectly; however, the Appellants arguments focus mostly on a witness who presented these findings at trial. Therefore, the Appellant’s arguments are more evidentiary-based rather than arguments based on how general class actions should be decided.

WHAT IS THE RULING

This case is not yet decided.

WHAT ARE THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THIS DECISION?

In a vacuum, this case is your fairly standard appellate review decision, as the Court has to make sure that the lower Court did their job correctly in evaluating the evidence. On a broader level, this case and the Spokeo v. Robbins case, could lend insight on how the Supreme Court considers the growing number of class actions in the United States.